Halford has sponsors advert where a customer grabs hold of a Halford staff member and without permission gives them a long lingering kiss on the lips.
In light of the allegations made against a Lib Dem Lord and considering the CPS rulings regarding certain celebs, the advert seems to find sexual assault acceptable.
Before anyone says the advert is only a bit of fun, I'm sure that's the argument the sex pest at work would use if one their colleagues complained.
Personally I think it is disgusting how endangered species are made to perform on television simply to advertise a brand of cereals.
Tony the Tiger and Coco the Monkey are forced against their free will to perform, does anyone have the number of the RSPCA, as something must be done!
Before anyone says this advert is only a bit of fun, I'm sure that's the argument people use when they mistreat animals when questioned by the police...
I worked in a DIY store as a teenager, and there was an "old" man (ie. decades older than me) who used to ask me to reach up and get a tin of paint for him, then touch my bum as I was up there.
I never even considered it abuse at the time, but times have certainly changed.
Personally I think it is disgusting how endangered species are made to perform on television simply to advertise a brand of cereals.
Tony the Tiger and Coco the Monkey are forced against their free will to perform, does anyone have the number of the RSPCA, as something must be done!
Before anyone says this advert is only a bit of fun, I'm sure that's the argument people use when they mistreat animals when questioned by the police...
Are cartoon characters an endangered species? If a real tiger was cruelly made to walk on their hind legs the animal loving British public would no doubt be outraged.
The Halford advert has people dressed in the companies uniforms acting as employees of the company, they may even be company staff. The message from the company is that sexual harassment is OK. How else can else can an intimidating stranger, who restrains someone by grabbing their arms and pulling that person to them and plants a lengthy kiss on their lips be interpreted? Where was the consent?
Are cartoon characters an endangered species? If a real tiger was cruelly made to walk on their hind legs the animal loving British public would no doubt be outraged.
The Halford advert has people dressed in the companies uniforms acting as employees of the company, they may even be company staff. The message from the company is that sexual harassment is OK. How else can else can an intimidating stranger, who restrains someone by grabbing their arms and pulling that person to them and plants a lengthy kiss on their lips be interpreted? Where was the consent?
I think you missed my point. The fact is that both are a work of fiction.
This advert is not real life, no normal person would do what they do in the adverts.
I think you missed my point. The fact is that both are a work of fiction.
This advert is not real life, no normal person would do what they do in the adverts.
What there isn't a company called Halfords, they don't have any staff?
I would say in a place like Halfords it's likely to be a member of staff who sees the advert as funny and re-enact the situation. And if they get a bad reaction they will probably do it again to the same person and find it funny while the 'victim' is upset by it.
Have you not read the incident reported to the police about Jimmy Savile in 2009?
Jimmy Savile used to grab womens hands and kiss them and carry on kissing all the way up their arm. Some woman it happened to found it disgusting but the public regarded it as harmless fun, what would they think now?
Look at the allegations about the Lib Dem Lord and his response, the women didn't find his actions funny.
There is a profession who pretend to do things, rather than do them for real, they're called actors and they appear on television amongst other places.
Luckily most people can tell the difference between reality and acting.
What there isn't a company called Halfords, they don't have any staff?
I would say in a place like Halfords it's likely to be a member of staff who sees the advert as funny and re-enact the situation. And if they get a bad reaction they will probably do it again to the same person and find it funny while the 'victim' is upset by it.
Have you not read the incident reported to the police about Jimmy Savile in 2009?
Jimmy Savile used to grab womens hands and kiss them and carry on kissing all the way up their arm. Some woman it happened to found it disgusting but the public regarded it as harmless fun, what would they think now?
Look at the allegations about the Lib Dem Lord and his response, the women didn't find his actions funny.
How on earth can you really state that a commercial is the same as a serial paedophile? So you are saying that the Halfords adverts are just as bad as Saville?
How on earth can you really state that a commercial is the same as a serial paedophile? So you are saying that the Halfords adverts are just as bad as Saville?
No, you are.
Read the CPS report into the allegations made to Surrey police in 2009. Also the complaints suggesting sexual harassment about a Lib Dem peer. You've also had evidence from women who say having their bottom pinched or breast squeezed had a negative impact on them for years.
You may see it as a bit of fun, but a woman who had her breast touched once by Stuart Hall provided evidence for his trial. A colleague of Hall's referred to a life of misery.
Ms McDougall told the Sunday Times: 'If you were female, at the slightest opportunity he would put his arms around you and force his body against yours.
At the time she probably thought he was just a nuisance something she had to put up with, I doubt very much she considered he was a paedophile. No doubt there were others in the office who saw it as a bit of fun, a laugh.
There is a profession who pretend to do things, rather than do them for real, they're called actors and they appear on television amongst other places.
Luckily most people can tell the difference between reality and acting.
There was a recent ad for a group of Claims Lawyers that used an actor from The Bill to speak as a lawyer. From the growth of their business I'd say it confirms many people have difficulty telling the difference.
I believe there used to be TV adverts for cigarettes, those companies must have wasted millions making smoking appear glamourous, attractive to woman, turned men into rugged Cowboys. Not sure why they banned those ads.
If a customer of Halford's did grab hold of one their staff and forcibly kissed them on the lips, and the staff complained, would the company support their staff member or tell them to get a life?
That's the difference though. The guy in the advert hasn't complained. Because he was acting.
You are referring to an era when men rule the roost, when domestic violence was acceptable, which the police would likely ignore. Bank manager's were men, an era when I don't think women could obtain mortgages they'd be in the husband's name. So men watched the ads of a buxom wench thrashing about and laughed, knowing a slap with the back of the hand would put her back in the kitchen.
I believe it was still a time when a husband could legally rape his wife, a time when men laughed at bra burning feminists so men in their position of supremacy would have laughed at that ad?
Halford has sponsors advert where a customer grabs hold of a Halford staff member and without permission gives them a long lingering kiss on the lips.
In light of the allegations made against a Lib Dem Lord and considering the CPS rulings regarding certain celebs, the advert seems to find sexual assault acceptable.
Before anyone says the advert is only a bit of fun, I'm sure that's the argument the sex pest at work would use if one their colleagues complained.
I agree - it's a surprisingly poor idea, particularly from a national company like Halfords.
With all due respect, please can you clarify that statement? At no point did I bring the Saville case into proceedings here and at no point am I trying to compare, however I think from your earlier comments you are.
Have you not read the incident reported to the police about Jimmy Savile in 2009?...
So again, I am asking you to answer the point you alluded to, and that is: Do you consider these adverts, because you have raised the Saville case in this discussion, to be on a par with the serial paedophile Jimmy Saville?
I look forward to your response, and to the reason why you have brought the Saville case into this discussion?
With all due respect, please can you clarify that statement? At no point did I bring the Saville case into proceedings here and at no point am I trying to compare, however I think from your earlier comments you are.
So again, I am asking you to answer the point you alluded to, and that is: Do you consider these adverts, because you have raised the Saville case in this discussion, to be on a par with the serial paedophile Jimmy Saville?
I look forward to your response, and to the reason why you have brought the Saville case into this discussion?
I gave an example of what Savile frequently did to WOMEN, some who have said they did not like it. Onlookers probably considered it a bit of fun. I drew attention to the complaint made by a woman in 2009 about a kiss Savile gave her, the document shows how the police and CPS regarded the incident on its own and alongside 4 other complaints.
A woman complained to the police about Stuart Hall putting his arm around her and placing his hand on her breast.
Both women felt so strongly about those incidents the memory remained with them 40-50 years after the event and they eventually complained to the police, not knowing of other complaints.
Speaking generally with no specific case in mind, when women are asked why they remained silent at the time they may well say, they were shocked, stunned, disgusted, humiliated, ashamed and panicked and neither exchanged a word afterwards.
The last shot of the ad is of someone left silent with a stunned shocked look on their face after having been grabbed hold of, manhandled and forcibly kissed on the lips.
I gave an example of what Savile frequently did to WOMEN, some who have said they did not like it. Onlookers probably considered it a bit of fun. I drew attention to the complaint made by a woman in 2009 about a kiss Savile gave her, the document shows how the police and CPS regarded the incident on its own and alongside 4 other complaints.
A woman complained to the police about Stuart Hall putting his arm around her and placing his hand on her breast.
Both women felt so strongly about those incidents the memory remained with them 40-50 years after the event and they eventually complained to the police, not knowing of other complaints.
Speaking generally with no specific case in mind, when women are asked why they remained silent at the time they may well say, they were shocked, stunned, disgusted, humiliated, ashamed and panicked and neither exchanged a word afterwards.
The last shot of the ad is of someone left silent with a stunned shocked look on their face after having been grabbed hold of, manhandled and forcibly kissed on the lips.
The shot I believe you are referring to is the one where the "Hard Man" comes in, looks at the mechanic, the mechanic looks like he is worried the hard man is going to give him a wallop, and then looks surprised when he gives him a smacker on the lips. The stunned look is more I would say a case of surprise and not disgust by being harassed by the hard man.
OK, quick reminder for you...
Jimmy Saville & Stuart Hall = Real World
Halfords Advert = Fiction
Has someone explained to you about Father Christmas yet?
Halford has sponsors advert where a customer grabs hold of a Halford staff member and without permission gives them a long lingering kiss on the lips.
...
Before anyone says the advert is only a bit of fun, I'm sure that's the argument the sex pest at work would use if one their colleagues complained.
I haven't seen this advert. I assume by other comments the customer is a woman and the staff member a man.
I'm sure if the roles were reversed there might be some outrage from feminist quarters about how it condones sexual assault. And it's only fiction would not satisfy them as justification.
In regards to the 'it's done with humours intention' I ask you to look at this advert for Bertolli:
The ASA in response for over a 100 complaints said the following:
"Whilst the Council acknowledged that the theme and humour in the ads might not appeal to everyone, they considered that most viewers would understand that they were attempting to be light-hearted and mischievous, rather than sinister or predatory."
The Council did not consider the ads likely to be seen by most viewers as sexist, or to cause serious or widespread offence for that reason. Furthermore, they did not consider that the behaviour shown in the ads was likely to be seen as condoning or encouraging sexual harassment, bullying or inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature. The Council did not consider the ads likely to cause serious of widespread offence, to be seen as irresponsible, or to cause harm for the reasons.
The Council did not consider the ads likely to be seen as trivialising the seriousness of sex-related crimes or sexual assault. They did not consider them likely to be seen as irresponsible or to cause serious or widespread offence for those reasons.
...
Whilst the Council noted the man was the butt of the women's joke, they did not consider the ads likely to be seen as degrading to men in general and did not consider it likely to cause serious or widespread offence for that reason.
The ASA understood that the ad was intended as a parody of a mundane business meeting and was intended to be humorous and light-hearted. Whilst we noted Dreamscape Networks' and Clearcast's comments about the female characters being portrayed as strong, confident business women, we considered that they were also portrayed sexually throughout the ad, not just during the fantasy sequence. We noted that even though they were wearing business attire, their shirts were buttoned down so that they were exposing their bras and cleavages. Furthermore, during the fantasy sequence, they were seen dancing and writhing around in cream whilst wearing bikinis. Although the fantasy scene, which we considered was sexually suggestive, was limited to Adam's imagination, we considered it gave the impression that he viewed his female colleagues as sexual objects to be lusted after. Because of that, we considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some viewers on the basis that it was sexist and degrading to women.
Note the different test applied. "Most viewers" in the former and "some viewers" in the latter. Also in the former the ASA used the test of what the those those viewers would think, in the latter the judged it by their own standards first then used it justify a ban because some viewers would be offended.
What there isn't a company called Halfords, they don't have any staff?
I would say in a place like Halfords it's likely to be a member of staff who sees the advert as funny and re-enact the situation. And if they get a bad reaction they will probably do it again to the same person and find it funny while the 'victim' is upset by it.
Have you not read the incident reported to the police about Jimmy Savile in 2009?
Jimmy Savile used to grab womens hands and kiss them and carry on kissing all the way up their arm. Some woman it happened to found it disgusting but the public regarded it as harmless fun, what would they think now?
Look at the allegations about the Lib Dem Lord and his response, the women didn't find his actions funny.
But those are real men and unconsenting women/girls. The Halfords advert features actors playing fictional characters. The advert is no different to a TV drama, TV comedy, film or soap - it's not real. No one truly believes that it would be okay to go into Halfords and kiss, hug or grope a member of staff, any more than they believe that there's a borough of Manchester called Weatherfield where the streets are cobbled and everyone dates and/or sleeps only with their neighbours and work in the same street as each other.
I haven't seen this advert. I assume by other comments the customer is a woman and the staff member a man.
I'm sure if the roles were reversed there might be some outrage from feminist quarters about how it condones sexual assault. And it's only fiction would not satisfy them as justification.
In regards to the 'it's done with humours intention' I ask you to look at this advert for Bertolli:
Well, I can sort of see their point. Outside of an advert that would be classed at assault under law, and these days fiction (from adverts, films and music videos) seems to be under constant scrutiny for condoning anything sexual because it either 'corrupts' kids or supposedly condones sexual assault or objectification.
I wouldn't complain about it to the ASA, but I can see why they asked the question in the current climate.
Comments
Personally I think it is disgusting how endangered species are made to perform on television simply to advertise a brand of cereals.
Tony the Tiger and Coco the Monkey are forced against their free will to perform, does anyone have the number of the RSPCA, as something must be done!
Before anyone says this advert is only a bit of fun, I'm sure that's the argument people use when they mistreat animals when questioned by the police...
Gloss or matte?
Are cartoon characters an endangered species? If a real tiger was cruelly made to walk on their hind legs the animal loving British public would no doubt be outraged.
The Halford advert has people dressed in the companies uniforms acting as employees of the company, they may even be company staff. The message from the company is that sexual harassment is OK. How else can else can an intimidating stranger, who restrains someone by grabbing their arms and pulling that person to them and plants a lengthy kiss on their lips be interpreted? Where was the consent?
I think you missed my point. The fact is that both are a work of fiction.
This advert is not real life, no normal person would do what they do in the adverts.
What there isn't a company called Halfords, they don't have any staff?
I would say in a place like Halfords it's likely to be a member of staff who sees the advert as funny and re-enact the situation. And if they get a bad reaction they will probably do it again to the same person and find it funny while the 'victim' is upset by it.
Have you not read the incident reported to the police about Jimmy Savile in 2009?
Jimmy Savile used to grab womens hands and kiss them and carry on kissing all the way up their arm. Some woman it happened to found it disgusting but the public regarded it as harmless fun, what would they think now?
Look at the allegations about the Lib Dem Lord and his response, the women didn't find his actions funny.
Luckily most people can tell the difference between reality and acting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-BF0WGQmHM
How on earth can you really state that a commercial is the same as a serial paedophile? So you are saying that the Halfords adverts are just as bad as Saville?
No, you are.
Read the CPS report into the allegations made to Surrey police in 2009. Also the complaints suggesting sexual harassment about a Lib Dem peer. You've also had evidence from women who say having their bottom pinched or breast squeezed had a negative impact on them for years.
You may see it as a bit of fun, but a woman who had her breast touched once by Stuart Hall provided evidence for his trial. A colleague of Hall's referred to a life of misery.
At the time she probably thought he was just a nuisance something she had to put up with, I doubt very much she considered he was a paedophile. No doubt there were others in the office who saw it as a bit of fun, a laugh.
There was a recent ad for a group of Claims Lawyers that used an actor from The Bill to speak as a lawyer. From the growth of their business I'd say it confirms many people have difficulty telling the difference.
I believe there used to be TV adverts for cigarettes, those companies must have wasted millions making smoking appear glamourous, attractive to woman, turned men into rugged Cowboys. Not sure why they banned those ads.
That's the difference though. The guy in the advert hasn't complained. Because he was acting.
Have you been reading Take A Break again ?
No, just touch-up paint.
I agree - it's a surprisingly poor idea, particularly from a national company like Halfords.
With all due respect, please can you clarify that statement? At no point did I bring the Saville case into proceedings here and at no point am I trying to compare, however I think from your earlier comments you are.
So again, I am asking you to answer the point you alluded to, and that is: Do you consider these adverts, because you have raised the Saville case in this discussion, to be on a par with the serial paedophile Jimmy Saville?
I look forward to your response, and to the reason why you have brought the Saville case into this discussion?
I gave an example of what Savile frequently did to WOMEN, some who have said they did not like it. Onlookers probably considered it a bit of fun. I drew attention to the complaint made by a woman in 2009 about a kiss Savile gave her, the document shows how the police and CPS regarded the incident on its own and alongside 4 other complaints.
A woman complained to the police about Stuart Hall putting his arm around her and placing his hand on her breast.
Both women felt so strongly about those incidents the memory remained with them 40-50 years after the event and they eventually complained to the police, not knowing of other complaints.
Speaking generally with no specific case in mind, when women are asked why they remained silent at the time they may well say, they were shocked, stunned, disgusted, humiliated, ashamed and panicked and neither exchanged a word afterwards.
The last shot of the ad is of someone left silent with a stunned shocked look on their face after having been grabbed hold of, manhandled and forcibly kissed on the lips.
The shot I believe you are referring to is the one where the "Hard Man" comes in, looks at the mechanic, the mechanic looks like he is worried the hard man is going to give him a wallop, and then looks surprised when he gives him a smacker on the lips. The stunned look is more I would say a case of surprise and not disgust by being harassed by the hard man.
OK, quick reminder for you...
Jimmy Saville & Stuart Hall = Real World
Halfords Advert = Fiction
Has someone explained to you about Father Christmas yet?
I haven't seen this advert. I assume by other comments the customer is a woman and the staff member a man.
I'm sure if the roles were reversed there might be some outrage from feminist quarters about how it condones sexual assault. And it's only fiction would not satisfy them as justification.
In regards to the 'it's done with humours intention' I ask you to look at this advert for Bertolli:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPFYh6fNYC4
The ASA in response for over a 100 complaints said the following:
Contrast that with this:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/6/Dreamscape-Networks-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_221269.aspx
Note the different test applied. "Most viewers" in the former and "some viewers" in the latter. Also in the former the ASA used the test of what the those those viewers would think, in the latter the judged it by their own standards first then used it justify a ban because some viewers would be offended.
Regis, this is what the OP is so shocked about...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2s4yesMO8k
There is a whole series of them.
Well, I can sort of see their point. Outside of an advert that would be classed at assault under law, and these days fiction (from adverts, films and music videos) seems to be under constant scrutiny for condoning anything sexual because it either 'corrupts' kids or supposedly condones sexual assault or objectification.
I wouldn't complain about it to the ASA, but I can see why they asked the question in the current climate.
And what about those murder mystery programmes where someone is shown actually killing somebody?!
Things are out of hand. Something needs to be done.